Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- #MeToo movement (1)
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1)
- Catch and kill (1)
- Compelled speech doctrine (1)
- Editorial discretion doctrine (1)
-
- Falwell (Jerry) (1)
- Flynt (Larry) (1)
- Hustler Magazine Inc v. Falwell (1)
- Janus v. AFSCME (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Labor unions (1)
- Make-believe (1)
- News media publication (1)
- Political speech (1)
- Public discourse (1)
- Satire (1)
- Satire as protected speech (1)
- Stare decisis (1)
- Trump (Donald) (1)
- Union fees (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Useful untruths (1)
- Withholding publication (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Janus's Two Faces, Kate Andrias
Janus's Two Faces, Kate Andrias
Articles
In ancient Roman religion and myth, Janus is the god of beginnings, transitions, and endings. He is often depicted as having two faces, one looking to the future and one to the past. The Supreme Court’s Janus v AFSCME case of last Term is fittingly named.1 Stunning in its disregard of principles of stare decisis, Janus overruled the forty-yearold precedent Abood v Detroit Board of Education. 2 The Janus decision marks the end of the post–New Deal compromise with respect to public sector unions and the FirstAmendment.Looking to the future, Janus lays the groundwork for further attack on labor rights—as …
Catch And Kill: Does The First Amendment Protect Buying Speech To Bury It?, Leonard M. Niehoff
Catch And Kill: Does The First Amendment Protect Buying Speech To Bury It?, Leonard M. Niehoff
Articles
The news media usually chase stories in order to publish them—but sometimes not so much. In some instances, media entities vigorously pursue a story—and purchase the source’s right to tell it—for the specific purpose of ensuring that it does not see the light of day. This practice, commonly called “catch and kill,” has recently come under close scrutiny and raises a host of questions.
These include pragmatic questions: Does the practice work? Can the media entity (or a third-party beneficiary) really enforce the underlying contract? Doesn’t the source’s willingness to abide by the contract come down to a simple economic …
Of Bee Stings, Mud Pies, And Outhouses: Exploring The Value Of Satire Through The Theory Of Useful Untruths, Leonard M. Niehoff
Of Bee Stings, Mud Pies, And Outhouses: Exploring The Value Of Satire Through The Theory Of Useful Untruths, Leonard M. Niehoff
Other Publications
In this article, I attempt to fill this conceptual gap within Hustler by offering a theory of how satire functions and why it has a distinctively important place in our public discourse. That theory draws on the work of philosophers like Kwame Anthony Appiah, Hans Vaihinger, Kendall Walton, and Lon Fuller, who have discussed the concept of “useful untruths”—lines of thought where we proceed as if something we know to be false is in fact true, because doing so serves a useful and valuable purpose. In my view, the philosophy of useful untruths can help us understand the complexity of …